->> I guess her publicists still haven't learned that you can't control the internet. By doing this, people run the Super Bowl photos to illustrate the story. Thus showing the unflattering images that they were trying to avoid.

->> When will musicians learn? First we had the whole show to shoot, then it was cut down to the first 3, then to 1, then 30 seconds of one, and now this? (of course I am talking about bigger acts, small bands still give us great access)
Instead of having professionally photographed images being run in magazines and newspapers (and online of course), she is now opening herself up to a smattering of low quality P+S and iPhone shots which will end up published. Hopefully this backfires and publicists realize that allowing properly credentialed professional do their job only benefits the artist and their image.

->> We talk all the time on this forum about safety cables and how it will only take one goofball photographer who makes a mistake to ruin it for all of us.

Is the only way a photographer can ruin it for us only be by hurting someone with equipment accidentally?

Having the right and ability to make a photo and publish it does have consequences.

I capture many people in unflattering circumstances which I normally delete. When I do pass along my edit I am saying all of these are acceptable.

When editors decide to publish photos they too are responsible for their actions.

When a pro publishes an unflattering image like the one from the super bowl, I am sorry but I don't see any GWC hurting her much more than that photo. The major difference is the public will most likely cut more slack for amateurs work not up to par than a professionals making her look so bad.

I am sorry but I think the photo from the Super Bowl should have ever made it past the ingest to the edits. I didn't see the news value of the photo. I just saw it as a photo that was humiliating.

->> I agree with a lot Stanley L. said. Has anyone thought about why those unflattering photos of Beyoncé were released in the first place? The only real context in which I have seen them used is when people are talking about how horrible they make her look.

I'm not saying we should go out of our way to make celebrities look good, but the NPPA Code of Ethics dictates we should "treat all subjects with respect and dignity." The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says we should "show good taste" and that "ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect."

Do these photographs do any of this? Were the photographers exercising professionalism when they chose to move these pictures up the pipeline? As Stanley asked, what was the news value of these images? What was the purpose of releasing them other than to humiliate?

While I certainly don't think it's right for Beyoncé to ban professional photographers from her concerts, it's not surprising if the results of allowing the so-called "professionals" to shoot is that they circulate images that are universally considered unflattering.

->> Since I don't care for the band, The Killers, I really don't give two hoots anyway, One would have to think since no cooperation is given by the band, then why would anyone want to write a review and give them any press at all? I'd say if The Killers, or any other band wanted a review, let them take out an ad.

I don't know, Stanley. I mean, sometimes we don't have a choice as to what kind of photos we want to shoot. We just shoot what is available to us. At some of these concerts, these bands have limited it to three songs and out ya go. Not really much time to get enough work to have a decent selection.

But since I didn't see the entire take from the Super Bowl, I can't say whether that was the best shot he got or not. I would have to assume there was at least something that didn't make her look so bad.

->> I don't have her money and I just don't care. She was embarrassed...she (and her handlers) are taking it out on the media...in the greater scheme of things does it really matter? probably not. However, I wouldn't trash the shooter on this....I've only shot a couple of concerts in the last two years and I can tell you right now with a two song limit and the boss wanting a gallery....I burned up a lot of pixels....that said...this was an editors fault...it was the Superbowl...I've never covered one....but I'm pretty sure a guy/gal shooting the halftime show never had time to even chimp their images....the card went back via a runner to an editor who was responsible for transmitting. I dare say the photographer probably never even saw the photos until long after the game was over.

->> There were thousands of photos taken by all the credentialed press. They didn't have to run that photo because they were lacking images.

I personally agree with Bradly. I question the ethics of them being published to begin with. I am more than willing to change my position if there is a news reason they needed to be published.

I have no question there is a professional shooting the concerts for Beyonce. There are not going to be a lack of images. Tell me what stock agency will not put them into their pipeline when they are now exclusives.

->> I just hope the photographer who agreed to sell the handout photo to them and put hundreds of photographers out of business made tens of thousands of dollars for selling out the other photographer who won't get paid to cover one of her concerts. That hand out photo is a very valuable piece of marketing for the performer. Let see what the standard usuage would be for unrestricted use in hundreds of newpaper and magazine stories for a period of 6 months to a year (just assuming usage here).

->> @Chuck — I agree the photographer(s) may not have seen what was being sent, however their editors are still journalists and should still abide by journalistic standards. Their poor judgement reflects poorly on all of us, and this ban is a case-in-point.

@Jeff - The link in Robert H.'s original post has a gallery of 150+ photos from the Super Bowl performance. A vast majority of them are perfectly fine. I don't think this gallery would've suffered without the unflattering photographs.

@Tom - Any newspaper with ethics and journalistic standards wouldn't use a handout photo for a a concert review. However, the key words here are "ethics" and "journalistic standards," things that clearly were tossed in the gutter when these unflattering photographs were posted online, and unfortunately are becoming more and more uncommon in the journalism industry in general.

->> @Luke - Like her or not, a big part of my income is from concert photography. This means that yes, I will directly suffer a loss of income because of this. I don't hold any ill will to the photographer who got the gig, I hope he is being payed properly for his work. I really hope he isn't working for credit!

->> The photos that I saw on the PhotoShelter account that I saw for the handouts were from a photographer working for Invision, which is part of the AP. So who knows what kinda rate they are paying!! Maybe a little slap in the face of Getty..who knows...

->> I just do not see how in the process of editing there was a moment of "lets see, we need a photograph of a pretty girl that sings and dances for this spot, hmmmmmmmmmm . . . THERE! THAT is the one! PERFECT!"

What I would really like for someone to explain is why it became such a priority to use an image where the subject has a facial expression that suggests that she just watched a live lobster being dropped into a professional grade food processor. If the story were about something really disgusting that happened in the first row during the performance and the pretty girl that sings and dances was reacting to that, then the choice of images would make more sense. As a photograph that is only "pretty girl sings and dances at football game" then I probably would have chosen a different image.

As for the muscles in the photograph, she and her team should not be trying to hide from this at all. Muscle definition like that is the result of time, training, and nutrition and is something requiring far too much effort to be a source of embarrassment. I played hockey in college against guys that did not have arms and legs like that!

->> I don't think AP/Invision was allowed to cover the tour? Entertainment photographer Frank Micelotta was more likely hired by Beyonce's PR people and the photos distributed by AP/Invision (and other wires).

Also notice the captions all contained descriptions of the "fashion" she is wearing ... I wonder if there was promo attached to that as well?

->> It didn't used to suck to be a concert photographer, then Gordon Sumner (aka "Sting") and his manager thought up the "first three songs" idea (August 1983, a Police concert at Shea Stadium) and it's been down hill ever since.

It's all about power. Power and control. Power, control and money. Power, control, money and image.

->> I agree with Tim and Stan. Stan, to me the superbowl pic is of paparazzi value. It isn't a great shot by any measure other than that. Why publish it unless the goal is to embarass? Fans don't go to see her flex.

Tim Snow, I agree. I have started shooting more and more concerts. In addition to the bands, live nation is very restrictive. On the one hand I find it hard to understand, but on the other hand when I see many of those that are credentialed I have a better understanding.

One alternative is the soundboard. Just shot the Wanee Festival and did a lot with a 400, 2.8 with a 1.4X teleconverter. A better angle for a guy like Greg Allman who is obscured by his keyboard from the pit!

->> David, I was ready to hop in with the Stones as the originators of the three song rule, but don't have a citation.
Also, I believe you're referring to Miles Copeland, brother of Police drummer Stewart Copeland. If you care to watch a bastard in action, watch the Sting concert movie Bring On the Night for a segment with Miles in action...

->> Beyonce only gave us 30 seconds at a concert in Orlando a few years ago. 15 of those seconds she was just standing there. When she finally broke into her song her tour people jumped in front of our cameras and yelled that our time was up.

A few songs later she fell down the stairs on her stage. I wish I was there to shoot that sweet photo karma.

->> I was there and photographed the 1977 Stones concert at Anaheim Stadium. It was three songs up front. Afterwards I roamed the stadium making crowd shots, overalls from the nose-bleed seats, long lens images of the stage, etc. for the rest of the show. Back then there were no multiple wardrobe changes like today. So what was photographed in the first three songs -- which lasted about 15 minutes -- looked like the middle and end minus the sweat.

In contrast, I shot Michael Jackson's Victory Tour concert at Dodger Stadium in 1984 and was allowed to photograph the entire show including costume changes.

->> I don't think you'll see a big outcry about this from the fans. The world has moved on. Fans get dozens of photos and videos from the front row of every single concert - beginning/middle/and end - all from other fans, almost in realtime, all for free. Nobody waits around to see what the newspaper photos are going to be - they just check twitter during and after the show. They share them with other fans, use them as wallpaper on their phones, load them on their ipads.

Do fan photos have the same you-can-almost-smell-the-sweat resolution and clarity that you get from a D4 and a 200-400 from the pit handled by a photographer with 20 years of experience? No. But the fans really don't care. If they want more refined images they go to the artist web sites and get images shot by a 20-year veteran paid to shoot the concert with a D4/200-400 and who was given access to far better positions all over the venue. And the fans get those shots completely free. Not behind a paywall. Free.

So maybe that's what the future of this genre becomes - media photo coverage is just aggregation of fan photos and the occasional handout photo. Or maybe if it's a big act the reporter buys a ticket and snaps his/her own photos using a cell phone. I'm sure the ever shrinking newsrooms at newspapers around the country won't have a problem with gaining back those hours lost by photographers sitting in green rooms for hours waiting for their two song opportunities.

->> David,
just because someone is a 20 year veteran with a d4 and a 200-400 lens doesn't mean they are going to make better photos than the newbe shooting their first concert. There was a HUGE concert that recently rolled thru NYC and a friend's daughter-she is probably 19, shot this concert-her first concert and her images were far better than the long time veterans that shot this show. She has since shot a few other shows and it wasn't beginners luck-the kid is better than most out there twice her age. And regarding Beyonce and all the others who say no to press-it isn't stopping those photographers from buying tickets and shooting the entire show-images have already been popping up in magazines. What it will do is make those photographers who may have otherwise gotten photo passes mad enough that they will release every bad photo.

We assume the handout photo put some photographers out of business, because it did. Just like the AP stringer contract that many staffers and one National Press Photographer Association didn't care to address as it was being put out there, because it either didn't pertain to them or it was "a employer/employee relationships issue" and didn't get involved. What we have to realize is that this industry is changing and we are letting it, so that there is less and less opportunity to make a living doing what I love to do and what I think is a talent that I have developed over the past 25 years. Now I still find clients who want quality images, but there are less and less of them out there.

As for the media not using handouts because of some so called journalism ethics, is holding less and less water these days. I see lots of publication willing to accept "submited" photos or handout photos from businesses or events, especially those events they are not allowed access to. It's kind of like the whole concept of being able to pay the AP to have photos delivered by their service for a fee--now tell me that isn't being done. PR Agencies think this service is great. Or even worse, a news agency just snagging a photo from an online source and running with it without permission.

We shouldn't be outraged at some singer for doing this, we should be outraged that lots of people, companies and businesses do this now more and more and the media is more than willing to accept them. Newspapers and magazines are becoming more and more just printers and less and less places to see good journalism.

->> Similarly to the media being fed and using handout photos, look at the number of them that are using stock photography to illustrate their stories -- especially on their websites, and especially TV stations -- instead of using original content. It is far easier and cheaper to use RF photography than to seek out and buy licenses for the actual art.

While print real estate is at a premium with shrinking pages, the online pages are limitless. As such it is very important to have a story illustrated to attract viewers and clicks -- clicks that translate into revenue. To fill that need stock photos that have absolutely nothing to do with the story are many times used as fillers to create visual eye candy.

The media would never use an unrelated quote in a story to sexy it up, yet many have no qualms about using unrelated photos. And what does that say about their ethical standards?